Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr. v. Virgil T. Ford, 870 F.2d 655, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The court dismissed an appeal from a federal prisoner because the prisoner submitted their notice of appeal to prison authorities more than 60 days after the judgment, which is outside the time period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and because the prisoner failed to file a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case. The court dispensed with oral argument since the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative cases.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1989-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 870 F.2d 655 Docket: 88-7835

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court dismissed an appeal from a federal prisoner because the prisoner submitted their notice of appeal to prison authorities more than 60 days after the judgment, which is outside the time period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and because the prisoner failed to file a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case. The court dispensed with oral argument since the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr. v. Virgil T. Ford, 870 F.2d 655, 4th Cir. (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court dismissed an appeal from a federal prisoner because the prisoner submitted their notice of appeal to prison authorities more than 60 days after the judgment, which is outside the time period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, and because the prisoner failed to file a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case. The court dispensed with oral argument since the dispositive issues had been recently decided by authoritative cases.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    870 F.

    2d 655
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Raymond Bradley NOTTINGHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Virgil T. FORD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 88-7835.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 31, 1989.
    Decided March 1, 1989.

    Raymond Bradley Nottingham, appellant pro se.


    Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Raymond Bradley Nottingham, a federal prisoner, submitted his notice of


    appeal to prison authorities outside the 60-day period established by
    Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). * It was therefore untimely. See Houston v. Lack, 56
    U.S.L.W. 4728 (U.S. June 24, 1988) (No. 87-5428). In addition, he failed to
    move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional 30-day period
    provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5).

    The time periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 are "mandatory and


    jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264
    (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
    Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal
    period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore
    dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive

    issues recently have been decided authoritatively.


    3

    DISMISSED.

    For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date Nottingham placed on
    the request to proceed in forma pauperis attached to his notice of appeal is the
    earliest date that he would have submitted it to prison authorities

    You might also like